Central Information Commission
Dalip Kumar vs Staff Selection Commission on 13 January, 2021
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के ीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग , मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No :CIC/SSCOM/A/2019/101053
Dalip Kumar ....अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Staff Selection Commission,
HQ, Block no 12, 5th,
CGO Complex,
New Delhi 110003 ... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 13/01/2021
Date of Decision : 13/01/2021
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 03/12/2018
CPIO replied on : 19/12/2018
First appeal filed on : 20/12/2018
First Appellate Authority order : 21/12/2018
Second Appeal dated : 07/01/2019
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed the instant Appeal with respect to point no.2 of the RTI application which sought the following information with respect to Stenographers Grade C & D Examination 2017:-1
1. Provide the copy voice CD of the both transcription passages ( i.e. Grade C and Grade D with respect to above mentioned roll no.).
The CPIO denied the information under Section 8(1)(d), (g) and (j) of the RTI Act, 2005.
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 20.12.2018. FAA's order dated 21.12.2018 upheld the reply of CPIO.
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal stating that the prescribed limit of dictating the passage was 100 words per minute (w.p.m). But, the passage dictated was full of variations as the speaker exceeded the prescribed limit many times which resulted in the failure of many other candidates including him.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Not present.
Respondent: A.K.Mandal, US & CPIO and H.L.Prasad, US & CPIO present through intra video-conferencing.
The CPIO submitted that as per their extant policy voice CD of the speaker is not provided to the candidates, but text of the speech is provided. He further stated that under RTI Act, the same was denied citing Section 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act as disclosure of the voice CD may identify the speaker and pose a threat of their life and physical safety.
Decision The Commission based on a perusal of the facts on record finds no reason to interfere with the reply of the CPIO or the FAA's order except for the fact that the application of Section 8(1)(d) & (j) of the RTI Act in addition to Section 8(1)(g) for denying the information sought for at point no.2 of the RTI Application was extraneous. As regards the applicability of Section 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act is concerned, given the fact that the grounds of Second Appeal mention that the information is being sought to perhaps prove that the speaker did not adhere to 2 the prescribed speed limit of dictation causing the failure of many candidates, the apprehension of the CPIO that the disclosure of the voice CD may pose threat to the life and physical safety of the speaker bears merit.
In view of the foregoing observations as well as the fact that the Appellant did not avail of the opportunity to plead his case or contest the CPIO's submissions, the Commission upholds the denial of the averred voice CD under Section 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani(सरोज पुनहा न) Information Commissioner (सू सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणतस!यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ,उप-पंजीयक दनांक / Date 3